Visuddhimagga - Introduction I

THE PATH
OF PURIFICATION
(VISUDDHIMAGGA)
BY
BHADANTACARIYA BUDDHAGHOSA
Translated from the Pali
by
BHIKKHU NANAMOLI
FIFTH EDITION
BUDDHIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY
Kandy Sri Lanka


 INTRODUCTION
The Visuddhimagga—here rendered 'Path of Purification'—is perhaps unique
in the literature of the world. It systematically summarizes and interprets the
teaching of the Buddha contained in the Pali Tipitaka, which is now recognized
in Europe as the oldest and most authentic record of the Buddha's words. As the
principal non-canonical authority of the Theravdda, it forms the hub of a com-
plete and coherent method of exegesis of the Tipitaka, using the ' Abhidhamma
method' as it is called. And it sets out detailed practical instructions for devel-
oping purification.
Background and Main Facts
The works of Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa fill more than thirty volumes in
the Pali Text Society's Latin-script edition; but what is known of the writer
himself is meagre enough for a page or two to contain the bare facts.
Before dealing with those facts, however, and in order that they may appear
oriented, it is worth while first to digress a little by noting how Pali literature
falls naturally into three main historical periods. The early or classical period,
which may be called the First Period, begins with the Tipitaka itself in the 6th
century B.C. and ends with the Milinda-panha about five (?) centuries later.
These works, composed in India, were brought to Ceylon, where they were
maintained in Pali but written about in Sinhalese. By the first century A.C.
Sanskrit (independently of the rise of Mahayana) or a vernacular had probably
quite displaced Pali as the medium of study in all the Buddhist * schools' on the
Indian mainland. Literary activity in Ceylon declined and, it seems, fell into
virtual abeyance between A.C. 150 and 350, as will appear below. The first Pali
renascence was under way in Ceylon and South India by about 400 and was
made viable by Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa. This can be called the Middle
Period. Many of its principal figures were Indian. It developed in several centres
in the South Indian mainland and spread to Burma, and it can be said to have
lasted till about the 12th century. Meanwhile the renewed literary activity again
declined in Ceylon till it was eclipsed by the disastrous invasion of the 11th
century. The second renascence, or the Third Period as it may be termed, begins
in the following century with Ceylon's recovery, coinciding more or less with
major political changes in Burma. In Ceylon it lasted for several centuries and
in Burma for much longer, though India about that time or soon after lost all
forms of Buddhism. But this period does not concern the present purpose and is
only sketched in for the sake of perspective.
The recorded facts relating from the standpoint of Ceylon to the rise of
the Middle Period are very few, and it is worth while tabling them.
1


Why did Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa come to Ceylon? And why did his
work become famous beyond the island's shores? The bare facts without some
interpretion will hardly answer these questions. Certainly any interpretation
must be speculative; but if this is borne in mind, some attempt (without claim
for originality) may perhaps be made on the following lines.
Up till the reign of King Vattagamani Abhaya in the first century B.C. the
Great Monastery, founded by Asoka's son, the Arahant Mahinda, and hitherto
without a rival for the royal favour, had preserved a reputation for the saintli-
ness of its bhikkhus. The violent upsets in his reign followed by his founding of
the Abhayagiri Monastery, its secession and schism, changed the whole situ-
ation at home. Sensing insecurity, the Great Monastery took the precaution to


commit the Tipitaka for the first time to writing, doing so in the provinces away
from the king's presence. Now by about the end of the first century B.C. (dates
are very vague), with Sanskrit Buddhist literature just launching out upon its
long era of magnificence, Sanskrit was on its way to become a language of
international culture. In Ceylon the Great Monastery, already committed by
tradition to strict othodoxy based on Pali, had been confirmed in that attitude by
the schism of its rival, which now began publicly to study the new ideas from
India. In the first century B.C. probably the influx of Sanskrit thought was still
quite small, so that the Great Monastery could well maintain its name in
Anuradhapura as the principal centre of learning by developing its ancient Tipi-
taka commentaries in Sinhalese. This might account for the shift of emphasis
from practice to scholarship in King Vattagamani's reign. Evidence shows great
activity in this latter field throughout the first century B.C., and all this material
was doubtless written down too.
In the first century A.C. Sanskrit Buddhism ('Hinayana', and perhaps by
then Mahayana) was growing rapidly and spreading abroad. The Abhayagiri
Monastery would naturally have been busy studying and advocating some of
these weighty developments while the Great Monastery had nothing new to
offer: the rival was thus able, at some risk, to appear go-ahead and up-to-date
while the old institution perhaps began to fall behind for want of new material,
new inspiration and international connexions, because its studies being restricted
to the orthodox presentation in tlje Sinhalese language, it had already done what
it could in developing Tipitaka learning (on the mainland Theravada was doubt-
less deeper in the same predicament). Anyway we find that from the first cen-
tury onwards its constructive scholarship dries up, and instead, with the reign of
King Bhatika Abhaya (B.C. 20-A.C. 9), public wrangles begin to break out
between the two monasteries. This scene indeed drags on, gradually worsening
through the next three centuries, almost bare as they are of illuminating infor-
mation. King Vasabha's reign (A.C. 66-110) seems to be the last mentioned in
the Commentaries as we have them now, from which it may be assumed that
soon afterwards they were closed (or no longer kept up), nothing further being
added. Perhaps the Great Monastery, now living only on its past, was itself
getting infected with heresies. But without speculating on the immediate rea-
sons that induced it to let its chain of teachers lapse and to cease adding to its
body of Sinhalese learning, it is enough to note that the situation went on
deteriorating, further complicated by intrigues, till in Mahasena's reign (A.C.
277-304) things came to a head.
With the persecution of the Great Monastery given royal assent and the
expulsion of its bhikkhus from the capital, the Abhayagiri Monastery enjoyed
nine years of triumph. But the ancient institution rallied its supporters in the
southern provinces and the king repented. The bhikkhus returned and the king
restored the buildings, which had been stripped to adorn the rival. Still, the


Great Monastery must have foreseen, after this affair, that unless it could suc-
cessfully compete with Sanskrit it had small hope of holding its position. With
that the only course open was to launch a drive for the rehabilitation of Pali—a
drive to bring the study of that language up to a standard fit to compete with the
'modern' Sanskrit in the field of international Buddhist culture: by cultivating
Pali at home and abroad it could assure its position at home. It was a revolution-
ary project, involving the displacement of Sinhalese by Pali as the language for
the study and discussion of Buddhist teachings, and the founding of a school of
Pali literary composition. Earlier it would doubtless have been impracticable;
but the atmosphere had changed. Though various Sanskrit non-Mahayana sects
are well known to have continued to flourish all over India, there is almost
nothing to show the status of the Pali language there by now. Only the Mahdvarhsa
[Ch.37, vv.215f. quoted below] suggests that the Theravada sect there had not
only put aside but lost perhaps all of its old non-Pitaka material dating from
Asoka's time.
2
 One may guess that the pattern of things in Ceylon only echoed
a process that had gone much further in India. But in the island of Ceylon the
ancient body of learning, much of it pre-Asokan, had been kept lying by, as it
were maturing in its two and a half centuries of neglect, and it had now acquired
a new and great potential value due to the purity of its pedigree in,contrast with
the welter of new original thinking. Theravada centres of learning on the main-
land were also doubtless much interested and themselves anxious for help in a
repristinization.
3
 Without such cooperation there was little hope of success.
It is not known what was the first original Pali composition in this period;
but the Dipavarhsa (dealing with historical evidence) belongs here (for it ends
with Mahasena's reign and is quoted in the Samantapdsddikd), and quite possi-
bly the Vimuttimagga (dealing with practice—see below) was another early
attempt by the Great Monastery in this period (4th cent.) to reassert its suprem-
acy through original Pali literary composition: there will have been others too.
4
Of course, much of this is very conjectural. Still it is plain enough that by 400
A.C. a movement had begun, not confined to Ceylon, and that the time was ripe
for the crucial work, for a Pali recension of the Sinhalese Commentaries with
their unique tradition. Only the right personality, able to handle it competently,
was yet lacking. That personality appeared in the first quarter of the fifth cen-
tury.
The Visuddhimagga and Its Author
Sources of information about that person fall into three groups. There are
firstly the scraps contained in the prologues and epilogues to the works ascribed
to him. Then there is the account given in the second part of the Ceylon Chron-
icle, the Mahdvarhsa (or Culavamsa as the part of it is often called), written in
about the 13th century, describing occurrences placed by it in the 5th century.
And lastly the still later Buddhaghosuppatti (15th cent.?) and other later works.


It seems still uncertain how to evaluate the old Talaing records of Burma, which
may not refer to the same person (see below). India herself tells us nothing at all.
It seems worth while, therefore, to give a rendering here of the principal
passage from the prologues and epilogues of the works ascribed to him by
name; for they are few and short, and they have special authentic value as
evidence. The Mahdvamsa account will be reproduced in full, too, since it is
held to have been composed from evidence and records before its author, and to
have the ring of truth behind the legends it contains. But the later works (which
European scholars hold to be legendary rather than historical in what they add
to the accounts already mentioned) can only be dealt with very summarily here.
The books actually ascribed to Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa have each a
'postscript' identical in form with that at the end of Chapter XXHI of the present
work, mentioning the title and author by name. This can be taken to have been
appended, presumably contemporaneously, by the Great Monastery (the
Mahdvamsa) at Anuradhapura in Ceylon as their official seal of approval. Here is
a list of the works (also listed in the modern Gandhavamsa and Sdsanavamsa
with one or two discrepancies):
5
Commentaries to the Vinaya Pitaka
SamantapAsAdika Commentary to Vinaya
Kahkhavitarani „ „ Patimokkha
Commentaries to the Sutta Pitaka
SumahgalavilAsini „ „ Digha Nikaya
PapancasudanI „ „ Majjhima Nikaya
Saratthappakasini „ „ Samyutta Nikaya
Manorathapurani „ „ Ahguttara Nikaya
Paramatthajotika „ „ Khuddakapatha,
Suttanipata
DhammapadatthakathA „ „ Dhammapada
Jatakatthakatha „ „ Jataka
Commentaries to the Abhidhamma Pitaka
AtthasAlini „ „ DhammasanganI
Sammohavinodani „ „ Vibhanga
Pancapakaranatthakatha ... „ „ Remaining 5 books
Beyond the bare hint that he came to Ceylon from India his actual works
tell nothing about his origins or background. He mentions 'The Elder Buddhamitta
with whom I formerly lived at Mayurasuttapattana' (MA. epil.),6
 and 'The well
known Elder Jotipala, with whom I once lived at Kancipura and elsewhere'
(AA. epil.).7
 Also the 'postscript' attached to the Visuddhimagga says, besides
mentioning his name, that he 'should be called "of Morandacetaka"'.8 And
that is all.


On coming to Ceylon, he went to Anuradhapura, the royal capital, and set
himself to study. He seems to have lived and worked there during the whole of
his stay in the island, though we do not know how long that stay lasted. To
render his own words: 'I learned three Sinhalese commentaries—the Mahd-
Attha-[kathd\, Mahd-Paccan, Kurundi—from the famed elder known by the
name of Buddhamitta, who has expert knowledge of the Vinaya. Set in the
grounds of the Maha Meghavana Park [in Anuradhapura] there is the Great
Monastery graced by the [sapling from the] Master's Enlightenment Tree. A
constant supporter of the Community, trusting with unwavering faith in the
Three Jewels, belonging to an illustrious family and known by the name of
Mahanigamasami (Lord of the Great City), had an excellent work-room built
there on its southern side accessible to the ever virtuously conducted Commu-
nity of Bhikkhus. The building was beautifully appointed, agreeably endowed
with cool shade and had a lavish water supply. The Vinaya Commentary was
begun by me for the sake of the Elder Buddhasiri of pure virtuous behaviour
while I was living there in Mahanigamasami's building, and it is now complete.
It was begun by me in the twentieth year of the reign of peace of the King
Sirinivasa (Of Glorious Life), the renowned and glorious guardian who has kept
the whole of Lanka's (Ceylon's) island free from trouble. It was finished in one
year without mishap in a world beset by mishaps, so may all beings attain ...'
(VinA. epil.).
Mostly it is assumed that he wrote and 'published' his works one by one as
authors do today. The assumption may not be correct. There is an unerring
consistency throughout the system of explanation he adopts, and there are cross-
references between works. This suggests that while the Visuddhimagga itself
may perhaps have been composed and produced first, the others as they exist
now were more likely worked over contemporaneously and all more or less
finished before any one of them was given out. They may well have been given
out then following the order of the books in the Tipitaka which they explain. So
in that way it may be taken that the Vinaya Commentary came next to the
Visuddhimagga; then the commentaries on the four NikAyas (Collections of
Suttas), and after them the Abhidhamma Commentaries. Though it is not said
that the Vinaya Commentary was given out first of these, still the prologue and
epilogue contain the most information. The four Nikaya Commentaries all have
the same basic prologue; but the Sarhyutta NikAya Commentary inserts in its
prologue a stanza referring the reader to 'the two previous Collections' (i.e. the
Digha and Majjhima Nikayas) for explanations of the names of towns and for
illustrative stories, while the Ahguttara Nikaya Commentary replaces this stanza
with another referring to 'the Digha and Majjhima' by name for the same
purpose. The point may seem laboured and even trivial, but it is not irrelevant;
for if it is assumed that these works were written and published' in some his-
torical order of composition, one expects to find some corresponding develop-


ment of thought and perhaps discovers what one's assumption has projected
upon them. The more likely assumption, based on consideration of the actual
contents, is that their form and content was settled before any one of them was
given out.
Sometimes it is argued that the commentaries to the Dhammapada and the
Jataka may not be by the same author because the style is different. But that fact
could be accounted for by. the difference in the subject matter, for these two
commentaries consist mainly of popular stories, which play only a very minor
role in the other works. Besides, while this auther is quite inexorably consistent
throughout his works in his explanations of Dhamma, he by no means always
maintains that consistency in different versions of the same story in, say, differ-
ent Nikaya Commentaries (compare for instance, the version of the story of
Elder Tissabhuti given in the commentary to A. Ekanipata n, 6 with that at
MA.i,66; also the version of the story of the Elder Maha-Tissa in the AA., same
ref., with that at MA.i,185). Perhaps less need for strictness was felt with such
story material. And there is also another possibility. It may not unreasonably be
supposed that he did not work alone, without help, and that he had competent
assistants. If so, he might well have delegated the drafting of the Khuddaka
Nikaya commentaries—those of the Khuddakapatha and Suttanipata, Dham-
mapada, and the Jataka —, or part of them, supervising and completing them
himself, after which the official *postscript' was appended. This assumption
seems not implausible and involves less difficulties than its alternatives.
9
 These
secondary commentaries may well have been composed after the others.
The full early history of the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries in Sinhalese
is given in the Ceylon Chronicle, the Dipavamsa and Mahdvamsa, and also in
the introduction to the Vinaya Commentary. In the prologue to each of the four
Nikaya Commentaries it is conveniently summarized by Bhadantacariya Bud-
dhaghosa himself as follows: *[I shall now take] the commentary, whose object
is to clarify the meaning of the subtle and most excellent Long Collection
(Digha Nikaya) ... set forth in detail by the Buddha and by his like [i.e. the
Elder Sariputta and other expounders of discourses in the Sutta Pitaka]—the
commentary that in the beginning was chanted [at the First Council] and later
rechanted [at the Second and Third], and was brought to the Sihala Island
(Ceylon) by the Arahant Mahinda the Great and rendered into the Sihala tongue
for the benefit of the islanders—, and from that commentary I shall remove the
Sihala tongue, replacing it by the graceful language that conforms with Scrip-
ture and is purified and free from flaws. Not diverging from the standpoint of
the elders residing in the Great Monastery [in Anuradhapura], who illumine the
elders' heritage and are all well versed in exposition, and rejecting subject
matter needlessly repeated, I shall make the meaning clear for the purpose of
bringing contentment to good people and contributing to the long endurance of
the Dhamma'.


There are references in these works to 'the Ancients' (pordnd) or 'Former
Teachers' (pubbdcariyd) as well as to a number of Sinhalese commentaries ad-
ditional to the three referred to in the quotation given earlier. The fact is plain
enough that a complete body of commentary had been built up during the nine
centuries or so that separate Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa from the Buddha. A
good proportion of it dated no doubt from the actual time of the Buddha
himself, and this core had been added to in India (probably in Pali), and later by
learned elders in Ceylon (in Sinhalese) as references to their pronouncements
show (e.g. Vis. Ch. XH, §105 and 117).
This body of material—one may guess that its volume was enormous—
Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa set himself to edit and render into Pali (the Tipi-
taka itself had been left in the original Pali). For this he had approval and
express invitation (see, e.g., the epilogue to the present work, which the Elder
Sanghapala invited him to compose). Modern critics have reproached him with
lack of originality: but if we are to judge by his declared aims, originality, or to
use his own phrase 'advertising his own standpoint' (Vis. Ch. XVII, §25), seems
likely to have been one of the things he would have wished to avoid. He says,
for instance, 'I shall expound the comforting Path of Purification, pure in Expo-
sitions, relying on the teaching of the dwellers in the Great Monastery' (Vis.
Ch. I, §4; see also epilogue), and again 'Now as to the entire trustworthiness
(samantapdsddikatta) of this Samantapasadika: the wise see nothing untrustworthy
here when they look—in the chain of teachers, in the citations of circumstance,
instance and category [in each case], in the avoidance of others' standpoints, in
the purity of [our] own standpoint, in the correctness of details, in the word-
meanings, in the order of construing the text, in the exposition of the training
precepts, in the use of classification by the analytical method—, which is why
this detailed commentary on the Vinaya ... is called SamantapasadikA (VinA.
epilogue). And then: 'The commentary on the Patimokkha, which I began at the
request of the Elder Sona for the purpose of removing doubts in those uncertain
of the Vinaya, and which covers the whole Sinhalese commentarial system
based upon the arrangement adopted by the dwellers in the Great Monastery, is
finished. The whole essence of the commentary and the entire meaning of the
text has been extracted and there is no sentence here that might conflict with the
text or with the commentaries of the dwellers in the Great Monastery or those of
the Ancients' (Patimokkha Commentary epilogue). Such examples could be
multiplied (see especially also Vis. Ch. XVII, §25).
There is only one instance in the Visuddhimagga where he openly advances
an opinion of his own, with the words 'our preference here is this' (Ch. XDI,
§123). He does so once in the Majjhima Nikaya Commentary, too, saying 'the
point is not dealt with by the Ancients, but this is my opinion' (MA.i,28). The
rarity of such instances and the caution expressed in them imply that he himself
was disinclined to speculate and felt the need to point the fact out when he did.